We have already had a very full discussion on this Bill and I think I have said most of what I wanted to say in reply to the debate. Many of the remaining points that were raised by Deputies opposite are more appropriate to Committee Stage and I propose to deal with them fully on that Stage. There are just one or two further comments of a general nature which I should like to make.
On the subject of housing which was referred to by a great many Deputies, it must be emphasised that the obligation to provide adequate housing for all our people is an obligation which rests on the community as a whole— where a person cannot provide it for himself—and cannot in equity be placed on individual property owners. It is an obligation which is properly undertaken on behalf of the community by bodies such as Dublin Corporation to whom the responsibility has been given by the Oireachtas.
If it becomes necessary that private property should be compulsorily acquired to meet housing needs, this must only be done in accordance with procedures authorised by law and with due regard for the rights of the owners and occupiers of property who are entitled to be fully compensated for their loss. Private individuals and groups have no right to take the law into their own hands in this matter. To argue that they have is to advocate anarchy and to defend unlawful interference with fundamental rights and freedoms which are guaranteed by the Constitution. In view of some of the comments made from the benches opposite it may, perhaps, be fitting if I remind the House that the Government and the Oireachtas are bound to uphold all the principles enshrined in the Constitution and not just the ones which particular individuals or groups find it convenient to cite for their own particular purposes.
Deputy FitzGerald and others alleged that the Bill seeks to make trespass in a building a criminal offence for the first time. The Deputy is quite wrong in this. If he will look at the Bill again he will see that trespass as such is not to be made an offence at all. Trespass consists in wrongfully entering on the property of another person. But mere entry on the property of another will not constitute an offence under this Bill. To constitute an offence under section 2 entry must be achieved by the use or threat of force, and even where forcible entry is effected, the person concerned will not be guilty of an offence unless he interferes with the use and enjoyment of the property by the owner, and if asked to leave by the owner or by a member of the Garda Síochána in uniform, he does not do so reasonably quickly and in a peaceful manner. It will be seen, therefore, that there is very much more to the offence than a mere act of trespass. Indeed, a careful reading of the relevant provisions will bear out what I said in my opening speech, namely, that the Bill has been framed on the basis that the sanction of the criminal law should not—and will not—be invoked as a substitute for civil action against trespass.
Criticism has been made of section 5 of the Bill on the basis that it allegedly transfers the onus of proof to the defendant. I shall discuss this in full detail on Committee Stage. Here I think it is sufficient to point out that the onus of proof in relation to forcible entry, which is the essence of the offence, will rest at all times on the prosecution. All section 5 does is to provide that the Bill will not be rendered totally unworkable. Without section 5, or without something like it, any group could take over a privately-owned house to which they had no suggestion of a legal claim and, if prosecuted for doing so, they could sit back and wait for the prosecution to prove title.
Every Member of the House who is a member of the legal profession and many Deputies who are not members of the legal profession are quite well aware that formal proof of title is a complex and expensive procedure. Anybody who has ever bought or sold a house or any form of real property knows this and knows that the idea of the prosecution, in the kind of case we are talking about here, having to go into the district court complete with title deeds, would be nothing short of an absurdity. I suggest to any Deputy who is serious about this sort of criticism to ask himself this question: what would his attitude be if he returned home one day and found his house occupied by one of these protest groups and, when he asked the group to leave he was met with the challenge: "Certainly we will leave as soon as you prove to us that you have a good title to the property."
In introducing the Bill I went out of my way to emphasise that I did not put it forward as the last word in perfection but as a reasonable and moderate attempt to meet a serious and recurring problem. I concluded on the note that I would be glad to hear the views of the House and to consider any suggestions that might be made for the improvement of the measure. This offer was made in good faith and it still stands. However, the House will appreciate that for obvious reasons the offer must be confined to serious suggestions that are made on reasoned grounds, and I would appeal to Deputies to approach the Committee Stage in that spirit.
